Government of Gujarat vs DHARMESHBHAI LAXMANBHAI CHAVDA Advocate - A P JANI — 584/2024

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A),116(B),98(2),81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 08th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJMR050006942024

Filing Number

584/2024

Filing Date

16-May-2024

Registration No

584/2024

Registration Date

16-May-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, TANKARA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

Decision Date

08-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11189006240115

Police Station

TANKARA POLICE STATION - MORBI DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A),116(B),98(2),81

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DHARMESHBHAI LAXMANBHAI CHAVDA Advocate - A P JANI

  2. 2.BHARATBHAI JIVABHAI CHAVDA

    Adv. A P JANI

  3. 3.SAHIDBHAI GULAMHUSENBHAI VADARIYA

    Adv. A P JANI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Dharmeshbhai Chavda (Case 584/2024) The court acquitted all three accused of alleged liquor smuggling charges under the Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt because the witnesses (panchas/panchayat members) who allegedly authenticated the seizure memo did not adequately corroborate the seizure details during examination, creating reasonable doubt about whether the contraband was actually recovered from the accused. Applying the fundamental criminal law principle that the prosecution must prove guilt without doubt, the court granted the benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  6. 21-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  7. 31-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  8. 02-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  9. 29-Nov-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  10. 17-Oct-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  11. 20-Sep-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  12. 25-Aug-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  13. 23-Jul-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  14. 21-Jun-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  15. 26-May-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  16. 28-Apr-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  17. 28-Mar-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  18. 21-Feb-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  19. 16-Jan-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  20. 13-Dec-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  21. 14-Nov-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  22. 11-Oct-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  23. 09-Sep-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  24. 02-Aug-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  25. 06-Jul-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  26. 30-May-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  27. 16-May-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 16-May-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 584/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Dharmeshbhai Chavda (Case 584/2024) The court acquitted all three accused of alleged liquor smuggling charges under the Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt because the witnesses (panchas/panchayat members) who allegedly authenticated the seizure memo did not adequately corroborate the seizure details during examination, creating reasonable doubt about whether the contraband was actually recovered from the accused. Applying the fundamental criminal law principle that the prosecution must prove guilt without doubt, the court granted the benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case